This section of Woman’s Lives was a new perspective on the many “catch-twenty-two’s” the United States Army offers to those that join it. Despite its many and incredible benefits it gives to those that only have a high school diploma, with little or no money, no future, it is one of the most sexists and as Jean Grossholtz states, “-the biggest welfare state in the world…”(521). Yet she goes on to say that “We [her fellow comrades] complained and raged against the Army’s peculiar ways of trying to break our spirit but all of secretly gloried in our new wealth and were shamed into lying about our pasts, making up stories that were nowhere near true”(521). This has to be one of the most ironic infrastructures within the cultural norms of the United States Army. On one hand, it gives one so much pride and respect within so much of the United States’ communities, a free education, and something to participate in that is bigger then one’s self. All these incredible benefits come with a huge price, much larger then the rewards given: censoring. The Army is one of the most gendered organizations, and with this gendering comes levels of power, and within this power comes the censoring of many men and women and pushes many into an identity crisis of who they truly are versus who they want to be. Grossholtz seems to be a perfect example of that in being from a small town, with no money, and an outsider because of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. The Army offered her an amazing education and a place of growth as a beneficial person to society, yet it silenced her beyond belief in that it told her that who she was as a gay women, as a women, was not right or acceptable, and needed to be silenced in ordered to be accepted in this world. The gendering that occurs within the hierarchical system of the Army is threatened by the gay and lesbian communities because it challenges the masculinity of the male dominance within the Army culture, and women that join are still socially seen as lower in the power structure. So why was Grossholtz marching for lesbians to be active the Army, when it was such a censored and dark place at so many points in her life? She states that “Because if they acknowledge the existence of queers in their ranks, in their leadership, and among those who make the decisions that vote them budgets, then they can no longer adhere to that male ideology of exclusion and machoism”(524). Who is “they”? Who is “them”? How do “they” have power? Who gives “them” that power? It seems as though the Army culture still feeds into many of the ignorant and prejudice views so many Americans have in current society, so what needs to change first? Gendering? Or rank of power?
I think the army is one of the more difficult things to tap in our society. By nature it seems to be held back culturally. The army was one of last US institutions to accept African Americans and women and still they struggle with issues surrounding women because of its culture. Rape has basically been an accepted thing in the military. Soldiers raped the women of the enemy and now with woman in their ranks rape their own fellow soldiers. Rape is existent outside the military, yes, but statistically it is much higher within.
ReplyDeleteAs society opens their minds to the variety of gender expression, the army is still held back in their age old ideals of what “men” are supposed to be. They feed off the dehumanizing of men as naturally violent, un sensitive, un feeling, masses of muscle because that keeps them as the killing war machines they want them to be. Think about it, the social construct of men aren’t supposed to complain of pain, or discomfort or getting dirty, all these ideals are perfect to indoctrinate into the military so that they can be the killing machines they need in war. This is why the very nature of war is so disgusting to me. This brute mentality that we have to solve things through violence when really it proves nothing is frankly ridiculous. We wouldn’t solve debate over policy with a shoot off? Or an argument between friends through a fist fight? Or would we? I suppose that’s what “men” do. The strong ones are right, the week ones are wrong. What happened to debating? What happened to compromise or diplomacy? That’s for the “pussies” and the weak.